Civ VII Developer Video - November 2025 | What's coming with tomorrow's update!

[Ryansinbela]

While it’s great that Japan and Korea can have their full historical paths so early, it’s disappointing that other regions are being completely overlooked. I think it’s about time they focused some attention on Africa and the Americas. Even Europe could use a bit more love.

Anyway, I don’t think they would release two Japanese and two Korean civilizations in the same DLC. Both countries are major gaming markets, so it’s smarter to spread them out and pair them with civilizations that aren’t as commercially appealing. Still, among civs from the same region, could there be a chance for the Ryukyu Kingdom? Or perhaps a Manchurian empire like Liao or Jin?

Atleast we finally got Exploration Japan

 

[cuc]

I checked the server and you won’t believe who I found

What I heard is that in the previous patch (Update 1.2.5):

1. References to Heian and Goryeo were found in art files;
2. A lot more references to Atomic Age assets had appeared, suggesting they are making new artworks for it right now — Atomic Age is an upcoming reality, not a cut feature.

 

[stealth_nsk]

2. A lot more references to Atomic Age assets had appeared, suggesting they are making new artworks for it right now — Atomic Age is an upcoming reality, not a cut feature.

I don't think it's even a question. There are too many things clearly left for the final age, not to mention hints from Ed.

 

[Siptah]

I don't think it's even a question. There are too many things clearly left for the final age, not to mention hints from Ed.

„Final age“? Now, that is just speculation. If the game sells well enough, they‘ll put a fifth age on top

 

[stealth_nsk]

„Final age“? Now, that is just speculation. If the game sells well enough, they‘ll put a fifth age on top

Honestly, that is hard to imagine. Even 4th age need to try hard to make game around map interesting. And if 4th age will include informational era, any 5th age would mean full scifi, so it would be easier to make Beyond Earth 2, which will start from empty map.

 

[j51]

Hopefully they’re doing the 4th age without adding new civs. Now that they plan on letting civs persist through ages it would be especially redundant and a waste of resources imo.

 

[j51]

I wonder if the Heian, Sengoku, Goryeo, and Joseon are only partially different than Meiji and Silla? Maybe they’re part of the testing that’s gonna happen for civ persistence: “Would you prefer a changing dynastic/periodic approach, or just let the civs persist as they are?”

 

[disjointaccount]

Hopefully they’re doing the 4th age without adding new civs. Now that they plan on letting civs persist through ages it would be especially redundant and a waste of resources imo.

I think for the most part I'd be content with the civs carrying over. Maybe some name changes (like "Colonial America -> "United States" type thing) just so there's a nominal change so it doesn't feel jarring to have the transition not come with changes when the previous transitions did. And changes to abilities that work with age-specific mechanics (Britain's artifact stuff, for example).

That said, the post-war era led to the birth of a LOT of modern-day nations as decolonisation occurred. It feels like it'd be a shame to miss out on post-war civs just because they didn't exist pre-war and as such don't have a modern civ to carry over into them. Maybe there could be room for a few atomic-exclusive civs to account for such cases? Something I'd really like to see is some sort of representation of decolonisation in-game, so maybe there could be postcolonial civs that arise out of some kind of rebellion/independence in distant lands settlements?

 

[stealth_nsk]

Hopefully they’re doing the 4th age without adding new civs. Now that they plan on letting civs persist through ages it would be especially redundant and a waste of resources imo.

We had this discussion before, and I don't see any reason to implement 4th age if it's not a full age with new game mechanics and new civilizations to utilize those game mechanics.

 

[j51]

I think for the most part I'd be content with the civs carrying over (maybe some name changes like "Colonial America -> "United States" type thing) just so there's a nominal change so it doesn't feel jarring to have the transition not come with changes when the previous transitions did. And changes to abilities that work with age-specific mechanics (Britain's artifact stuff, for example).

That said, the post-war era led to the birth of a LOT of modern-day nations as decolonisation occurred. It feels like it'd be a shame to miss out on post-war civs just because they didn't exist pre-war and as such don't have a modern civ to carry over into them. Maybe there could be room for a few atomic-exclusive civs to account for such cases? Something I'd really like to see is some sort of representation of decolonisation in-game, so maybe there could be postcolonial civs that arise out of some kind of rebellion/independence in distant lands settlements?

Yeah India, (CCP) China, Germany, (modern) Japan, Saudi, Türkiye, and Kenya or Tanzania could be interesting. Also Canada, Australia, South Africa, and the Soviet Union could be modern or atomic. There’s no real reason to make full atomic versions of Great Britain, America, Mexico, Nepal, and France (just rename it please - eye roll).

 

[stealth_nsk]

Yeah India, (CCP) China, Germany, (modern) Japan, Saudi, Türkiye, and Kenya or Tanzania could be interesting. Also Canada, Australia, South Africa, and the Soviet Union could be modern or atomic. There’s no real reason to make full atomic versions of Great Britain, America, Mexico, Nepal, and France (just rename it please - eye roll).

Great Britain has unique Explorer, America is fully themed around industrialization and France has Jacobins as their unique units. I can't imagine any of those in Atomic era.

There are actually pretty few civs which need to make from modern to atomic (America, UK, France, Germany, China and India) and all of them would require different set of bonuses.

 

[j51]

We had this discussion before, and I don't see any reason to implement 4th age if it's not a full age with new game mechanics and new civilizations to utilize those game mechanics.

Yeah but it feels like most people in those discussions disagreed with you. We want more civs from deeper in the past that have never made it before: Sogdia, Tiwanaku, Taino, Asante, etc. There’s only so many resources firaxis has and the changes to civ continuity could free them up from a commitment to a full battery of atomic era civs.

 

[Xandinho]

Honestly, I can’t imagine how a fourth era with an entirely new roster of civilizations could work. I can picture Prussia becoming Germany, Great Britain becoming the United Kingdom, and the Qing becoming China, but what about America, France, and Russia? Would they create two artificially distinct versions of America? What name would they even give this new America? And what about France, would they include another one called the French Republic? I also can’t imagine a fourth era without some form of Russian representation, so would they include the controversial Soviets?

As for the rest of the world, most of the civilization choices would either be uninspiring or controversial. Honestly, the game doesn’t need another era; it just needs to expand the modern era by adding more technologies and civics that cover the historical periods of the Cold War and the Information Age, along with a rework of the victory conditions. But if they truly believe the Atomic Age needs its own distinct theme, then they should do it without introducing an entirely new set of civilizations. That’s how I see it.

 

[disjointaccount]

Great Britain has unique Explorer, America is fully themed around industrialization and France has Jacobins as their unique units. I can't imagine any of those in Atomic era.

There are actually pretty few civs which need to make from modern to atomic (America, UK, France, Germany, China and India) and all of them would require different set of bonuses.

The more I think about it, the more I think

And changes to abilities that work with age-specific mechanics (Britain's artifact stuff, for example)

Is doing a lot of heavy lifting in my comment lol.

 

[UWHabs]

I think my biggest problem with a fully modern age is that since the gap in years is smaller, it's a lot harder to wrap your head around a civ transition. Like Normans going to British/French/America/etc... sure, I'll justify. Or if you want them to become Ottomans or Qajar or whoever else, I'll just treat that as like my alternate history for that.

But it's a lot harder to wrap your head around anything other than Britain->England, America->USA, etc... Maybe you could sort of shift the timelines back and have the current modern era end more around WW1, and treat the new atomic era as more like WW2 and beyond, you can kind of squint and see how the dynamic between those eras did re-form and re-shape some nations. You can see nations like Canada emerge fully from being a British protectorate, full independence for India, and so on. But again it's going to feel weird to go from Colonial America to become the Soviet Union...

The bigger problem too is that the modern era is bad as it is, I can't imagine life there if you're not racing towards the end of the game either. Unless if you somehow completely change up how the game works with industrialization, I don't really need 2 eras at the end of the game where I don't have any new map to explore or places to settle.

 

[j51]

Great Britain has unique Explorer, America is fully themed around industrialization and France has Jacobins as their unique units. I can't imagine any of those in Atomic era.

There are actually pretty few civs which need to make from modern to atomic (America, UK, France, Germany, China and India) and all of them would require different set of bonuses.

Not complete sets of new bonuses though, just a few new civics and maybe a new civilian unit or two. Honestly atomic should maybe have a few fully original mostly post colonial civs, but otherwise depend on an even deeper set of uniques related to ideology (units, buildings, more policies, etc.).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

There’s no real reason to make full atomic versions of Great Britain, America, Mexico, Nepal, and France (just rename it please - eye roll).

Obviously Great Britain needs to become the United Kingdom, that way to incorporate Northern Ireland.

But yeah, my real opinion is the same as what @Xandinho said above. Extend the Modern into a new "Atomic/Information Age" but not with more civs.

 

[Xandinho]

I think my biggest problem with a fully modern age is that since the gap in years is smaller, it's a lot harder to wrap your head around a civ transition. Like Normans going to British/French/America/etc... sure, I'll justify. Or if you want them to become Ottomans or Qajar or whoever else, I'll just treat that as like my alternate history for that.

But it's a lot harder to wrap your head around anything other than Britain->England, America->USA, etc... Maybe you could sort of shift the timelines back and have the current modern era end more around WW1, and treat the new atomic era as more like WW2 and beyond, you can kind of squint and see how the dynamic between those eras did re-form and re-shape some nations. You can see nations like Canada emerge fully from being a British protectorate, full independence for India, and so on. But again it's going to feel weird to go from Colonial America to become the Soviet Union...

The bigger problem too is that the modern era is bad as it is, I can't imagine life there if you're not racing towards the end of the game either. Unless if you somehow completely change up how the game works with industrialization, I don't really need 2 eras at the end of the game where I don't have any new map to explore or places to settle.

Well, Civ7 already takes a very flexible approach to how civilizations are distributed across eras (like the Khmer in Antiquity or Hawaii in the Exploration), so I don’t think nations such as Canada, Australia, or even some post-colonial African nations like Nigeria would feel out of place in the Modern Age. In fact, I think the Khmer feel more out of place in Antiquity than Australia would in the current modern era. As I said above, all they really need to do is expand the existing Modern Age.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Yeah but it feels like most people in those discussions disagreed with you. We want more civs from deeper in the past that have never made it before: Sogdia, Tiwanaku, Taino, Asante, etc. There’s only so many resources firaxis has and the changes to civ continuity could free them up from a commitment to a full battery of atomic era civs.

I remember it differently

There were several opinions and the same arguments rotating over and over, often being ignored, so it's hard to say if we ever came to anything.

Honestly, I can’t imagine how a fourth era with an entirely new roster of civilizations could work. I can picture Prussia becoming Germany, Great Britain becoming the United Kingdom, and the Qing becoming China, but what about America, France, and Russia? Would they create two artificially distinct versions of America? What name would they even give this new America? And what about France, would they include another one called the French Republic? I also can’t imagine a fourth era without some form of Russian representation, so would they include the controversial Soviets?

2 distinct versions of America, yes. Where modern-age America is focused on industrialization and frontier expansion, 4th age America need to focus on economics and technology.

And Russia don't need representation in 4th age at all.

As for the rest of the world, most of the civilization choices would either be uninspiring or controversial. Honestly, the game doesn’t need another era; it just needs to expand the modern era by adding more technologies and civics that cover the historical periods of the Cold War and the Information Age, along with a rework of the victory conditions. But if they truly believe the Atomic Age needs its own distinct theme, then they should do it without introducing an entirely new set of civilizations. That’s how I see it.

Why they would be uninspiring or controversial? If 4th age will come with its set of new game mechanics, civilizations interacting with them could be fun.

I think my biggest problem with a fully modern age is that since the gap in years is smaller, it's a lot harder to wrap your head around a civ transition. Like Normans going to British/French/America/etc... sure, I'll justify. Or if you want them to become Ottomans or Qajar or whoever else, I'll just treat that as like my alternate history for that.

We're talking about end of colonial era and overall world reshaping. I'd say civilization transition totally makes sense with countries like Australia just emerging.

But it's a lot harder to wrap your head around anything other than Britain->England, America->USA, etc... Maybe you could sort of shift the timelines back and have the current modern era end more around WW1, and treat the new atomic era as more like WW2 and beyond, you can kind of squint and see how the dynamic between those eras did re-form and re-shape some nations. You can see nations like Canada emerge fully from being a British protectorate, full independence for India, and so on. But again it's going to feel weird to go from Colonial America to become the Soviet Union...

Yes, it mostly goes to whether people are ok with civilization switching (especially free switching) or not. For people who barely tolerate civ switching and look for historical paths, adding one more break is clearly an issue.

The bigger problem too is that the modern era is bad as it is, I can't imagine life there if you're not racing towards the end of the game either. Unless if you somehow completely change up how the game works with industrialization, I don't really need 2 eras at the end of the game where I don't have any new map to explore or places to settle.

Yes, that's the biggest one. When talking about 4th age, I assume Firaxis will:

• Rework legacy paths and victory paths in a way to make playing age with victory interesting regardless of which age it is (this is also needed to let players finish in antiquity and exploration as originally planned). As far as we know, it's in the works already
• Additionally tune modern to be interesting as both final and non-final age
• Implement 4th age in a way to make it's gameplay interesting (it actually has a lot of materials for this with satellites, internet, corporations, proxy wars and much more).

If all this will be done, having full 4th age will be beneficial

Not complete sets of new bonuses though, just a few new civics and maybe a new civilian unit or two. Honestly atomic should maybe have a few fully original mostly post colonial civs, but otherwise depend on an even deeper set of uniques related to ideology (units, buildings, more policies, etc.).

I don't understand the desire to break the game framework. The game has structure, it has the same number of legacy paths, the same core elements. This allows things like Catherine bonus, which provides additional great work slots regardless of which great work it is. Why break this with "not a full age", "partial bonus replacement" and stuff like this? That would make the game really messy and hard to grasp.

EDIT: Not to mention I disagree with this partial bonus replacement. Of all America uniques, including traditions, infrastructure, etc. only Marines somehow could fit 4th age and even them really should be replaced with some aircraft carrier and fighter jet UUs. American civilization went through conceptual transformation and in my book it needs to be represented in 100% different way.

 

[pjotroos]

Honestly, that is hard to imagine. Even 4th age need to try hard to make game around map interesting. And if 4th age will include informational era, any 5th age would mean full scifi, so it would be easier to make Beyond Earth 2, which will start from empty map.

As things stand, 3rd age needs to make game around map interesting. It currently doesn't for most victories. You do an optional minigame for archeology, trade for the resources you need, and put your population into specialists. You only really engage with the map if you try to win a war. In Civ VI, you used to settle late game cities in unhospitable terrain, to access rich deposits of coal, oil or uranium, but "unhospitable terrain" isn't a thing in VII. So if the fourth era is really coming, it hopefully comes with overhaul across all eras and harsher terrain before modern.